Thursday, March 24, 2016

rollercoaster of (definitely not) love

spent about 10 hours in the office yesterday. at one point, i opened up the citizenship document and took a good, hard look at it. and then closed it.

i think my brain just said, "LOL. there's no way you can finish that in a week and a half." and since there are so many other things to do right now, i just walked away and did those instead.

today, though, i did some actual work. first, i read some articles on rhetorical agency (for the arab spring project) and took notes on those. some of those notes were about the content. the often-quoted pieces by Geisler seem helpful, as does a tech comm piece by Koerber.  but i also took some notes on genre - which should have occurred to me to do long ago. in part, it was because the Koerber piece was so different from the others. tech comm writing is more hard-sciency than, say, comp pedagogy scholarship. i went through and did what i've asked countless students to do, which is to map the articles.

often the introduction has an intro-intro, and then a paragraph functioning as an abstract, with argument and all. usually a preview of the topics or sections. maybe a bit about why this object is worth of study. the body of the article needs to deal with methods - and not just methods, but theoretical frame.

these are things i don't think i've been doing well in my conference papers. i think that, in a lot of ways, i have never been taught how to write an effective seminar paper or scholarly article. i know a well-written one when i'm reading it, but i don't believe, looking back, that my classes put enough emphasis on understanding them thoroughly, and on writing one well. it makes a certain amount of sense, because you've got limited time. and i came to my doctorate new to rhet/comp - i STILL feel new to rhet/comp, which hasn't helped. i know far far more about how to teach in my discipline than i do about how to conduct research in it, or about how to situate myself as a scholar in it.

i don't know, not completely, how to fix this. but as a start, i sat down with the IPS paper and tried to identify some things.



  • Methods: Looking at IPS usage in documents, largely available online. Have not made a study of speech acts. Am using a rhetorical approach because analysis shows the logic behind it and b/c of how it turns private reactions into public conversations. Rhetoric also very interested in citizenship.
  • Theoretical Frame: Rhetorical scholars Poirot, Eberly, Meagher/DiQuin for their work on how discourse intersects with citizenship and/or feminism. Azoulay for her work on citizenship - using her definition of the term, and her ideas about impaired citizenship.Will need to both write about these people and probably explain why I'm using them.
  • Argument: The rhetoric of IPS frames women in ways that limit their citizenship. In part, by making them exceptional (men not vulnerable to the illness, only exceptional women are "cool"), and by requiring them to police themselves and each other. Per Azoulay - when a vulnerability becomes "everyday" it's not the exception - the population is.  As well, where citizens are not governed equally, there isn't citizenship. Implications - the term presents itself as describing an isolated situation (girls in all-male settings), as being itself an exception, but I argue that it is instead the normal condition of all women.


this is the clearest sense i have had of this project at any point. i feel like it results in an argument that's far more citizenship-studies than rhetorical-studies, but i think that's okay. this gives me a sense of what i need to write, and what i can cut. i still don't know that i can get this done in 8-9 days.
but it's certainly more likely now than when i was staring with blank despair into the document.

i'm not really ready to think about the long-term yet. i know that i am going to have to keep doing a lot of extra work in order to become the sort of scholar i need to be for the future. but i need to survive finals and this particular conference first.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

hanging on with fingernails

When I had that productive work day a couple weeks ago, I felt really good about things. That is not really (translation: not at all) the case right now.

I have less than 2 weeks until the Citizenship conference, and the paper I hoped to have in rough draft form by now is really a loosely-organized collection of notes. I think, if I quit sleeping and eating, I can probably manage to get that paper done AND get all my grading done before April 1st.

I also spent a couple hours the other day going through my Arab Spring chapter and making changes to it. I think, other than it completely lacking a section explaining its relevance to my field, that it's actually pretty solid. I want to type up the changes and send it to my mentor so she can look at it, but haven't had the time yet. Every moment I've spent at the office is either in a meeting, in the classroom, preparing to be in the classroom, or grading.

I know that if it comes down to the wire, I can always just gracefully bow out of the citizenship conference. I'd rather not, though. I like this project, and I need to be able to say I'm working on something new. Besides, even if I'm not frantically working on THAT document, I'm going to have to be frantically working on something.

ALSO ON TAP
  • Look into ATTW conference for next year and see about going/presenting
  • Buy a copy/procure a desk copy of a better business writing textbook
  • Finalize plans for 311 class this Spring
  • Get back on the "research hour" wagon and spend an hour a day with one of the books in my tall "to read soon" pile

really, this happened about two weeks ago...



Good work day. I spent 1.5 hours going over most of my notes, rejecting some, and typing others into an outline document. I need to impose more structure on this later - right now I have 6 large sections (intro, defining citizenship, methodology, object of study, what it means to have impaired citizenship, and implications), but inside those sections right now it's just quotes and observations and no organization at all. That, along with going over the remaining notes, will be my next step for this project. There's also a collection of notes that seem relevant but I don't know where they go at the top of the document. Hopefully I can slot these in as I figure out internal structure.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

snow day, الحمدلله

Projects on tap right now: CCS Conference paper on the impaired citizenship of women.  Reworking chapter on Arab Spring for publication. Charity and Citizenship paper.


What I Did Today/Recently

I have been buried, which is no excuse for anything. Hiring committee stuff, grading both papers and midterms in one class, etc. Plus general health stuff. I lost most of yesterday between seeing my regular doctor, going to a lab, having a ridiculous amount of blood drawn, and then passing out in an exhausted blood-loss coma. I'm not thrilled about this snow day - my 101 class is losing valuable time on a difficult paper - but it is giving me a chance to get caught up on things.




The other members of the Watson panel have decided they're not interested, so that's being dropped from my immediate tasks. The theme is weird, and I was relying on their ideas to help me justify my own. It would be nice if we all had this talk sooner, but whatever. One less thing to do.


I read both "A Pedagogy of Charity," and "The Public Value of Epideictic Rhetoric" a week or ten days ago. Neither seems helpful for anything I'm doing. Another article, "The Princess and the Magic Kingdom," does seem potentially helpful for the Citizenship piece. Not for a lot, mind you, but there's a reference to heroes living in reality, princesses in unreality that I will probably include somewhere.


I bought a LOT of books last week. One of them, A Question of Sex, had some good stuff. Specifically, it talks about the postfeminist media context as one where success is measured in terms of the products we can purchase, our ability to achieve economic stability. The author says that this tends to depoliticize oppression. She mentions Susan Douglas's work on "enlightened sexism," which I think is probably worth my taking a look at. Wayne State appears to have a copy, so whenever the snow lets up, I can trek down there. The idea, in general, seems to be that we shift the conversation from groups of people to individuals. Not to say that individuals, and their agency and responsibilities, aren't important. But we stop seeing patterns. It's as if every day another student at Kettering was getting mugged and instead of asking "is someone targeting our students?" we just continued to treat each event as involving individuals with no group affiliations. Or, more relevant, like when McCain chose Palin as his running mate, and people were like "oh, look, discrimination based on gender is totally over, forever, because this one woman, EVER, was included."


I also read through a book called Citizen Critics, although I genuinely can't remember now which project I thought it was useful for. I only made a couple of notes on it, and they were about what the author says the role of rhetoric is, to help us begin to "manifest a public-oriented subjectivity...to turn private reactions about literary or cultural texts into discourses that address some shared concerns" (9). This is very much in line with my own definition of citizenship from the dissertation, which is why it struck me. But it doesn't help me make an argument about anything as much as it helps me to justify my methodology.


When I look back over what I've gotten done in the last two months, I realize I need to make some changes. It's great to read, but I can read *forever* and still not know enough. This conference is in early April. I absolutely have to start writing.

Next Steps

  1. Take the outline of Citizenship paper that I made and start fleshing it out with actual writing
  2.  Read Visions of Charity for the Charity piece
  3. Find and read the Susan Douglas book on enlightened sexism
  4. Re-read Chapter 1 of Azoulay. 
  5. Finish reading Women & Citizenship for Citizenship
  6. Do a markup of what's worth keeping and what has to be fixed in Arab Spring chapter
  7. Talk with Student Life about Citizenship

Sunday, February 7, 2016

citizenship and charity

Projects on tap right now: CCS Conference paper on the impaired citizenship of women. Proposal for paper for the Thomas Watson Conference. Reworking chapter on Arab Spring for publication. Charity and Citizenship paper.



What I Did Today/Recently

This is predominantly about the Charity piece, so I'm not going to worry about bolding it every time.

I did finally look at my feedback on the rejected Charity piece. The comments were generous - my article is well written and well organized, as well as interesting. However, all my reviewers note, I'm not clearly explaining how my project is situated in the field of rhetoric. Which is no surprise - I felt when I was writing the end of it that I hit a wall where I ought to be answering "So what?" and didn't have much to say.

The last couple days I have been looking up potential sources to help me situate the piece. I read Foss and Griffin's "Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric," and then Lozano-Reich and Cloud's response to it, "The Uncivil Tongue." Neither is especially useful for the Charity project, although they actually might be useful for some of my other citizenship-oriented pieces. In short, Invitational Rhetoric is a type of rhetoric based not on a dominance model of persuasion, but a model of understanding that draws on feminist ideas of equality and immanent worth. The Cloud response essentially says that's all well and good when we're in a safe place, but invitational rhetoric works best with equal parties, which rarely occur. Further, they point out that the idea of being "civil" that's part of invitational rhetoric has been used to silence groups in the past. (I am thinking here of my own upbringing in the South, with comments about how ladies should act.) So, not helpful for this project, but perhaps for some of the work on protest as citizenship.

I also read "Invitational Rhetoric and the Case for Service Learning." I'm not thrilled about this, but I'm going to hold on to it anyway. I really DON'T want to situate this piece by saying rhet/comp should care about charity because of service learning. I'm not a compositionist, so this isn't my field of expertise (or, frankly, interest), and if at all possible, I want to avoid doing all the reading this move would involve. But I'll hold on to the piece. It has info on how service learning builds/fosters citizenship.

Finally, I read Kirk's "Beyond Charity" on helping NGOs change the frame they use for discussing their work. This, finally, seems useful. He has information on how the dominant ideas about charity are moralistic and built on an unequal relationship. He talks about how the consumer strategy route also fails to promote ideas that lead to lasting cultural change. It's not, unfortunately, a piece in my discipline (ethics, instead of rhetoric), but it's still something I'll be leaning on.

Found a piece called "Pedagogy of Charity," but haven't read it yet. I'm also trying to get my hands on a piece called "Citizen Bodies," for the Citizenship project, but neither Kettering nor Wayne has a subscription to the journal it's in. I spent an hour or so tracking down potentially useful texts on Amazon, most of which are explicitly rhetorical approaches to citizenship, publics, etc. So even though I have a dozen other books to read, a stack of 6 journals to glance through, and papers to grade in two classes, I suppose I need to buy those and start reading...











Next Steps

  1. (STILL) Re-read Chapter 1 of Azoulay. 
  2. Finish The Regime of the Brother 
  3. Finish reading Women & Citizenship for Citizenship
  4. Sort through my various internet sources for Citizenship
  5. Keep thinking about how to approach the Thomas Watson panel. 
  6. (STILL) Print the Arab Spring chapter and do a markup of what's worth keeping and what has to be fixed. 
  7. Talk with Student Life about Citizenship
  8. Look at my feedback on the Charity piece 
  9. Finish reading new sources
  10. Buy all the books I tracked down on Amazon

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

bad bad researcher

Projects on tap right now: CCS Conference paper on the impaired citizenship of women. Proposal for paper for the Thomas Watson Conference. Reworking chapter on Arab Spring for publication. Charity and Citizenship paper (damnit).


What I Did Today/Recently

I've been bad at updating as I work, so now I'm stuck trying to remember what I've been working on. Let this be a lesson to others, and myself. (This will happen again.)

Citizenship
I did in fact go to Wayne State. Finished up my time with Regime of the Brother, and confirmed that it will be, at best, marginally useful. I started to read Women and Citizenship, but ran out of time. I looked up some articles, and took notes on those as well. One was a senior thesis project doing a feminist reading of Brave, which wasn't itself useful, but directed me to a couple of other sources. I requested a copy of a Gillan Youngs article from Wayne's library. There's a Foss and Griffin piece on "invitational rhetoric" that I still want to look at, I think. 

I looked over my various internet source, finally. Took quite a few notes. Some of the sources are clearly affiliated with other institutions, which will help when I go talk to Student Life. I can make it clear that I'm talking about something that happens at this school, but not ONLY at this school. And I can make it clear I'm not looking to present anyone in a negative light.  

I went for a very long walk on Friday and talked through the tentative outline for this project, and then got that down on paper when I got back home. So, while I'm not comfortably far with this project, I have made satisfying progress. 

Arab Spring & Thomas Watson
Ain't done a thing.   
Charity 
I heard back from the editors of the journal I submitted this piece to. I realize that publishing is a numbers game. The publication I do have was the result of two years work, and it was accepted by, I think, the third journal we tried. Still, getting a rejection, even a nice one, is disheartening. It's not unexpected, and I don't really disagree with them. It's just that it was nice having this off my plate. Now it's back.
So now I need to print out the feedback the reviewers sent me, and take a look at that. And start looking for a new venue to try. Hard to be more specific without viewing the review comments.  

Next Steps

  1. (STILL) Re-read Chapter 1 of Azoulay. 
  2. Finish The Regime of the Brother 
  3. Finish reading Women & Citizenship for Citizenship
  4. Sort through my various internet sources for Citizenship
  5. Keep thinking about how to approach the Thomas Watson panel. 
  6. (STILL) Print the Arab Spring chapter and do a markup of what's worth keeping and what has to be fixed. 
  7. Talk with Student Life about Citizenship
  8. Look at my feedback on the Charity piece (damnit!) 

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

new project



This isn't an official new project, since I don't have a venue in mind for this. I just want to get some thoughts down, in case it ever seems worth pursuing. This is probably the most "cultural studies-y" thing I've thought about in some time. [SPOILERS]

Premise

Sophie is a blond girly girl and Agatha is her cynical goth friend. They live in a world where children are kidnapped periodically by the School Master and taken off to the titular School for Good and Evil. Agatha doesn't believe it's real, and doesn't want to go anyway, while Sophie wants desperately to escape her boring life in a small town and become a Princess. On the appointed night, both girls are taken (naturally) but Sophie ends up in the School for Evil and Agatha in the School for Good. Hi-jinks ensue.

Visibility

Unsurprisingly, the book is very concerned with visibility. Princesses (and Princes) are handsome, while Witches (Warlocks, Werewolves, Minions, Henchmen, Etc.) are ugly. One of Sophie's roommates is an albino with only a single eye, and another is morbidly obese. Moreover, most of them are cruel, unclean, unpleasant people, although it's difficult to say why. The adult teachers push the idea that souls are inherently either Good or Bad, but I'm not sure I buy it. Having been an overweight, weird teenager myself, I can imagine some of the Evil students are what they are because of how others have treated them. Also, some of them appear to be related to famous villains - the Sheriff of Nottingham's daughter, for instance. One assumes that family values are transferred.

But anyway. To a large degree, the book buys into what is called sentimental transparency. This is the idea that beautiful people are beautiful inside as well. In sentimental novels, if someone's beauty seems forbidding or sinister, you bet your ass that person will be evil. Anyone who is unattractive or deformed tends to be evil. You can always tell good people from bad people just by looking in these books. Obviously, the same logic is at work here.

Except! The appearance of Sophie and Agatha throws this all out the window (sort of). At first, people are confused by them. And we get glimmers of others "seeing" inside of them. For instance, one teacher greets Agatha with big smiles, "as if she belonged." She discovers later that he is blind, and rumored to be a Seer. In another scene, Sophie's roommates are listening to her insist that she doesn't belong in the Evil school. When one asks why, Sophie tries to explain tactfully, but is quickly goaded into screaming at them, "LOOK AT ME AND LOOK AT YOU." In the silence afterward, roommate Dot says, "Definitely Evil." In their classes, students have this idea, that the visible can be deceiving, reinforced. Several of their "challenges" (I guess these are like quizzes?) involve a teacher transfiguring a Good student and an Evil one into seemingly identical things (two pumpkins, or two trolls, or two princesses) and then asking other students in the class to figure out how to tell Good from Evil under these conditions. It's stressed that this is an important skill.

But then sentimental transparency comes back. But not really. At one point, a teacher says, "It's not what you are, it's what you do." We see this near the end, during the Battle of the Ball, when Sophie tricks the Good students into attacking the Evil students while they are innocently enjoying themselves at a dance. Because "evil attacks and good defends," she argues that the two sides have traded places. Immediately, the appearance of the students' change - Evil students become attractive, while the Good students suffer warts, boils, deformities, mutations, whatever. This seems to undermine the entire idea that souls are inherently anything. We see other flashes of this. Agatha is tricked into thinking she's been madeover into a beauty, and because she acts like one (she's confident, outgoing, smiling), people see that she was never really unattractive. Right before this fake makeover, a teacher asks Agatha if she thinks Beatrix (another Good student) is beautiful. Agatha confesses that she did at first, but not since discovering how unpleasant a person she is.

But even this isn't consistent. Sophie becomes less attractive when she's studying all the time, even though this is virtuous. When she straight up MURDERS The Beast, it doesn't affect her looks at all. 

So What?

This matters in part because both girls want desperately, in their own way, to be seen. The entire basis of their friendship is about this. Agatha knows that Sophie is superficial and originally sought Agatha out only because she knew that "good" people befriend the unfortunate. Sophie knows that Agatha is not as cynical and indifferent as she appears. In spite of seeking her out out of charity, Sophie admits that she has come to genuinely enjoy Agatha's company - she can be herself with her, and says that Agatha sees her for who she is. When the book (inevitably) pits them against one another for the favor of a Prince named Tedros, he consistently chooses Agatha in the challenges mentioned above. During these, Sophie is heartbroken, desperate to be seen as the Princess she believes she is. She tries everything she can think of to convince Tedros, classmates, the teachers, that if they just really *looked* at her, they'd see she doesn't belong in Evil. On the other hand, Agatha resents Tedros choosing her, because it clouds how Sophie sees her. Sophie begins to perceive her as a rival, when Agatha wants her to see her as friend who is sincerely trying to do what's best.

Love is Blind

Tedros consistently choosing Agatha is played not just like it's about his ability to see Good from Evil, but as if it's about Love. He chooses Agatha because he's meant to be with her, and she does eventually start to have feelings for him. Before that, though, in about the middle of the book, Tedros and Sophie begin to date, to the horrified fascination of the schools. Tedros insists that their love will prove that Sophie doesn't belong in Evil, and that he'll save her.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't say he loves her, or that she loves him. Sophie isn't willing to risk her life for Tedros, or to tell him the truth. Much of their relationship is based on Agatha having told Sophie what she should tell Tedros - it's all very Cyrano de Bergerac. He's in "love" with Sophie's face and Agatha's words. But he also falls for Sophie because she takes steps to do well in her classes, become popular with both Good and Evil students, etc. When she starts to fail some of her classes, he is immediately angry with her. He acts betrayed, rather than concerned for her. When he begins to recognize his feelings for Agatha, he doesn't act on them until he sees her dressed up for the dance in a Hermione-like transformation. Even then, he questions her behavior, tells her a real Princess would just let him handle things and protect her. This isn't love.

Instead, the grand love affair of the book is between Sophie and Agatha. At the end, when she's given a choice between handsome Tedros and Sophie (who at this point has allowed her anger and rage to turn her into a bald, warty, toothless crone), Agatha chooses Sophie. In spite of having been lied to, backstabbed, and taken for granted, even though she knows Sophie has done Evil things, and suspects her of The Beast's murder, Agatha kisses Sophie, and the two girls vanish together. In spite of knowing that Agatha cares for Tedros, and feeling betrayed and abandoned by her, Sophie still wants and invites Agatha's friendship and love. This will be read by many as lesbianism, and that's fine. It's obviously an available reading. But regardless of their sexuality, I think the bigger point is that they SEE each other, the good and the evil, and they consistently choose one another anyway.

More on this later...